Zach LarkinsCAPITAL PUNISHMENT I (a)
I really didn't want to get personally wrapped up in this series. I just wanted to report something that caught my fancy. However, the comments I received on the first article would have been too long to reply to in that forum, so I've decided to do another article, as an aside, to deal with them. To get it out in the open, I am an advocate for the death penalty. Now that that hurdle is out of the way, let's begin.
Don Lee says, "To a liberal, any punishment that fits the crime is going to be "inhumane". I think he's right. When one looks at the conservative justice meted out to offenders in a society such as Islam, one sees that the punishment is in full agreement with the crime. As barbaric as it is to us, a thief will have his hand cut off, a rapist will be castrated the hard way, with a sword, an adulterer or adulteress might well be stoned to death. As I said, this is very barbaric to our way of thinking, but I can't help but feel that because we hear so little of crime under Islamic rule, is it not a deterrent that makes one think twice before deciding that the crime is worth the punishment? San Francisco Mayor Moscone and Harvey Milk were killed by a fellow named White who said he OD'd on eating Twinkies. I'm not sure of how the case was resolved, but it sounds like the jury bought the defence and didn't have him put down. Lawyers know better than anyone that justice must not only be done, but also be seen to be done.
S L Bradish says that life without parole doesn't always mean what it says. She cites the example of California Supreme Court Justice Rose Byrd who wanted to free as many lifers as possible. One fellow got his death sentence commuted because she found "no clear evidence" that he meant to kill. He threw three small children off a bridge then raped and nearly decapitated their mother. This isn't "clear evidence"? It sure is to me. I can only assume that the family wanted revenge for this act and saw the death penalty as a way of getting it. Where do they see justice being done when this guy gets his sentence commuted? I had always thought that in the US life without parole meant just that. It is different here in Canada. A life sentence is 25 years maximum. You are eligible for parole after having served at least a third of that time. Where is justice seen to be done there? The only way to incarcerate someone for actual life is to have them declared a dangerous offender, which is hard to do under the liberal brand of humane treatment of prisoners. The aforementioned fellow got a commuted sentence and with it, the chance of eventual parole. I'm sure the family of his victims feels good about that.
Wendi says she does not condone the death penalty. To her, it is a hypocritical, double standard. She says that if murder is against the law, then ‘legalized murder' should be also. I don't know what her feelings are about abortion. Roe vs Wade seems to have legalized the murdering of unborn children. Regardless, I don't feel that capital punishment is ‘legalized murder'. Our society is run under a set of rules, regulations and laws that spell out quite distinctly what one may or may not do. It also spells out the punishment one can expect for braking those rules. To take that argument to the absurd, why should I be penalized for speeding when the police, fire department and paramedics can do it? I know the rules and I know what will happen if I get caught. Either speeding or killing someone. I'll have to suck it up and take my punishment like a man. The old saying, "If you can't do the time, don't do the crime" applies in spades here. Wendi would like to punish the offenders, she just doesn't want to kill them. Okay. Let her and the rest of the anti-capital punishment crowd pay to keep the guy behind bars until he dies. No one has ever explained to me how it's cheaper to feed, clothe and shelter a convict for the rest of their lives than it is to invest in $10.00 worth of rope and perhaps $1000.00 in lumber for a gallows and simply hang the guy. Right now, the Salvation Army is having a ‘Bed and Bread' drive where they supply poor families three meals a day and a bed to sleep in if they need it. The cost? $120.00 per person per year. Why do we spend over $84,000.00 a year to house a prisoner? Wendi, if you and the people who agree with you want to pick up the tab for keeping these convicts, be my guest. I would expect my taxes to go down as I wouldn't be responsible for them any more.
Jim Stillman says he would support capital punishment if it were established to work and protect society. I have to agree with him on that. We all want to be sure that we don't kill an innocent man. He writes that the dead guy won't be able to repeat his crimes and we've all seen to many instances of a rapist being set free only to rape again. Jim also says that true life without parole would serve the same purpose as executing an offender. Again, I wouldn't mind some clarification on the difference in cost of keeping vs killing him. We all know that there is no true life without parole. The liberal mind set simply won't allow it. Jim writes, "There is no reasonable assertion that the death penalty acts as a deterrent to other criminals. The bad guy assumes he or she will not be caught; it isn't the ultimate punishment that is in play, it's the issue of whether apprehension is inevitable." I can't argue with that. That's what comes into play with me as I speed down the road. However, we'll never really know. Just as the pro-lifers say that you might have aborted another Mozart or Einstein, we'll never know. Just as we'll never know whether facing the death penalty made some would-be killer change his mind.
Jim makes a good point about DNA evidence. Let's take a good look at this. He writes, "And then, there is the issue of the 50 or so prisoners who have, in the past few years, had their guilt successfully challenged with new DNA or other evidence, the convicts whose trials have been tainted by inadequate counsel or prejudice, and so on and so on." True enough. We've all heard the stories of the Truscott's and Milgaard's who were found not guilty years after their incarceration with the help of DNA evidence. However, they were tried under the laws and technology available at the time. Both Truscott and Milgaard were to be executed for their crimes at the time they were committed. Every time someone is sentenced to die there is an automatic appeal. Some criminals are so adept at using the appeal process that they can gain a fine education on my money while they exhaust the court's patience. How else to explain Robert Marshall, a man who spent 18 years on death row before his sentence was thrown out? Explain Ronald Curtis Chambers, who has spent 31 years on death row. Four days before his execution date, Chambers was granted a stay of execution on a legal technicality. The point is that we can forever go back in history and apply modern technology to a time when it simply didn't exist. Truscott, Milgaard, Chambers and Marshall would be nothing more than foot notes in history if their sentences had been carried out.
I won't disagree with clearing someone's name after the fact. However these clearances always come with a huge settlement awarded the wronged person. I recall how Dr. Mudd's family finally got his name cleared years ago, and good for them. I don't know if they received any settlements, but I know here in Canada, the wronged person usually gets tens of millions of dollars and a formal apology. Why, if the court's function is to make a person whole again and not let them gain from an injustice, is all this money being awarded? Would Milgaard have ever made $23 million in his life? Not likely. He spent the money boozing and partying and is in trouble with the law again. Again, another absurd argument would be that if I were convicted of an offense that carried a $500.00 fine at the time of conviction, can I now ask for a refund when the fine is reduced to $50.00? Think about it. That's what we do when we apply today's technology to yesterday's crime.
Bhumika writes that she supports the death penalty for heinous crimes such as murder, rape and child molesters. It is a given that not everyone qualifies for death. Those crimes and treason should certainly be grounds to execute someone. If found guilty, there is one appeal to address the DNA issue, tainted evidence and incompetent representation. If you are still found guilty, say good-bye. If not, you are free to go.
As promised, I will have more on this series, but in the meantime I hope I've answered some of your questions. I look forward to your responses and thank you all for you input.
Sources: S L Bradish The Political Brief
Don Lee Associated Content
Wendi Paranormally Speaking
Bhumika A Political Mind
Jim Stillman Associated Content
Don Lee says, "To a liberal, any punishment that fits the crime is going to be "inhumane". I think he's right. When one looks at the conservative justice meted out to offenders in a society such as Islam, one sees that the punishment is in full agreement with the crime. As barbaric as it is to us, a thief will have his hand cut off, a rapist will be castrated the hard way, with a sword, an adulterer or adulteress might well be stoned to death. As I said, this is very barbaric to our way of thinking, but I can't help but feel that because we hear so little of crime under Islamic rule, is it not a deterrent that makes one think twice before deciding that the crime is worth the punishment? San Francisco Mayor Moscone and Harvey Milk were killed by a fellow named White who said he OD'd on eating Twinkies. I'm not sure of how the case was resolved, but it sounds like the jury bought the defence and didn't have him put down. Lawyers know better than anyone that justice must not only be done, but also be seen to be done.
S L Bradish says that life without parole doesn't always mean what it says. She cites the example of California Supreme Court Justice Rose Byrd who wanted to free as many lifers as possible. One fellow got his death sentence commuted because she found "no clear evidence" that he meant to kill. He threw three small children off a bridge then raped and nearly decapitated their mother. This isn't "clear evidence"? It sure is to me. I can only assume that the family wanted revenge for this act and saw the death penalty as a way of getting it. Where do they see justice being done when this guy gets his sentence commuted? I had always thought that in the US life without parole meant just that. It is different here in Canada. A life sentence is 25 years maximum. You are eligible for parole after having served at least a third of that time. Where is justice seen to be done there? The only way to incarcerate someone for actual life is to have them declared a dangerous offender, which is hard to do under the liberal brand of humane treatment of prisoners. The aforementioned fellow got a commuted sentence and with it, the chance of eventual parole. I'm sure the family of his victims feels good about that.
Wendi says she does not condone the death penalty. To her, it is a hypocritical, double standard. She says that if murder is against the law, then ‘legalized murder' should be also. I don't know what her feelings are about abortion. Roe vs Wade seems to have legalized the murdering of unborn children. Regardless, I don't feel that capital punishment is ‘legalized murder'. Our society is run under a set of rules, regulations and laws that spell out quite distinctly what one may or may not do. It also spells out the punishment one can expect for braking those rules. To take that argument to the absurd, why should I be penalized for speeding when the police, fire department and paramedics can do it? I know the rules and I know what will happen if I get caught. Either speeding or killing someone. I'll have to suck it up and take my punishment like a man. The old saying, "If you can't do the time, don't do the crime" applies in spades here. Wendi would like to punish the offenders, she just doesn't want to kill them. Okay. Let her and the rest of the anti-capital punishment crowd pay to keep the guy behind bars until he dies. No one has ever explained to me how it's cheaper to feed, clothe and shelter a convict for the rest of their lives than it is to invest in $10.00 worth of rope and perhaps $1000.00 in lumber for a gallows and simply hang the guy. Right now, the Salvation Army is having a ‘Bed and Bread' drive where they supply poor families three meals a day and a bed to sleep in if they need it. The cost? $120.00 per person per year. Why do we spend over $84,000.00 a year to house a prisoner? Wendi, if you and the people who agree with you want to pick up the tab for keeping these convicts, be my guest. I would expect my taxes to go down as I wouldn't be responsible for them any more.
Jim Stillman says he would support capital punishment if it were established to work and protect society. I have to agree with him on that. We all want to be sure that we don't kill an innocent man. He writes that the dead guy won't be able to repeat his crimes and we've all seen to many instances of a rapist being set free only to rape again. Jim also says that true life without parole would serve the same purpose as executing an offender. Again, I wouldn't mind some clarification on the difference in cost of keeping vs killing him. We all know that there is no true life without parole. The liberal mind set simply won't allow it. Jim writes, "There is no reasonable assertion that the death penalty acts as a deterrent to other criminals. The bad guy assumes he or she will not be caught; it isn't the ultimate punishment that is in play, it's the issue of whether apprehension is inevitable." I can't argue with that. That's what comes into play with me as I speed down the road. However, we'll never really know. Just as the pro-lifers say that you might have aborted another Mozart or Einstein, we'll never know. Just as we'll never know whether facing the death penalty made some would-be killer change his mind.
Jim makes a good point about DNA evidence. Let's take a good look at this. He writes, "And then, there is the issue of the 50 or so prisoners who have, in the past few years, had their guilt successfully challenged with new DNA or other evidence, the convicts whose trials have been tainted by inadequate counsel or prejudice, and so on and so on." True enough. We've all heard the stories of the Truscott's and Milgaard's who were found not guilty years after their incarceration with the help of DNA evidence. However, they were tried under the laws and technology available at the time. Both Truscott and Milgaard were to be executed for their crimes at the time they were committed. Every time someone is sentenced to die there is an automatic appeal. Some criminals are so adept at using the appeal process that they can gain a fine education on my money while they exhaust the court's patience. How else to explain Robert Marshall, a man who spent 18 years on death row before his sentence was thrown out? Explain Ronald Curtis Chambers, who has spent 31 years on death row. Four days before his execution date, Chambers was granted a stay of execution on a legal technicality. The point is that we can forever go back in history and apply modern technology to a time when it simply didn't exist. Truscott, Milgaard, Chambers and Marshall would be nothing more than foot notes in history if their sentences had been carried out.
I won't disagree with clearing someone's name after the fact. However these clearances always come with a huge settlement awarded the wronged person. I recall how Dr. Mudd's family finally got his name cleared years ago, and good for them. I don't know if they received any settlements, but I know here in Canada, the wronged person usually gets tens of millions of dollars and a formal apology. Why, if the court's function is to make a person whole again and not let them gain from an injustice, is all this money being awarded? Would Milgaard have ever made $23 million in his life? Not likely. He spent the money boozing and partying and is in trouble with the law again. Again, another absurd argument would be that if I were convicted of an offense that carried a $500.00 fine at the time of conviction, can I now ask for a refund when the fine is reduced to $50.00? Think about it. That's what we do when we apply today's technology to yesterday's crime.
Bhumika writes that she supports the death penalty for heinous crimes such as murder, rape and child molesters. It is a given that not everyone qualifies for death. Those crimes and treason should certainly be grounds to execute someone. If found guilty, there is one appeal to address the DNA issue, tainted evidence and incompetent representation. If you are still found guilty, say good-bye. If not, you are free to go.
As promised, I will have more on this series, but in the meantime I hope I've answered some of your questions. I look forward to your responses and thank you all for you input.
Sources: S L Bradish The Political Brief
Don Lee Associated Content
Wendi Paranormally Speaking
Bhumika A Political Mind
Jim Stillman Associated Content
youranter
Opinions
opinionatedranter
Tales From The Green Lantern
S L, right on. If the one appeal lasts 10 years, that's more than enough time to put your ducks in a row.